The Palestinian Authority declares war on Israel?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


If you define people as race. No ones racially pure. But when a Jew married a converted gentile, that gentile accepted belonging to the Jewish people.

Do you suppose the Palestinians suggest their right of return is only for pureblooded descendants of Palestinian exiles?

Peoples dont work like that. The claims they have are COLLECTIVE, and their willingness to accept new members, their LACK of racial exclusiveness, does not negate their claims, as long as they maintain a national continuity, and a culture that evolves organically through time.

The PEOPLE remain a people, even as individuals intermarried into it in each generation.

Who gives a **** about "peoples"? Who someone is, as an individual, and what rights they should be granted and enjoy should have 0 to do with what "people" they care to say they belong to, because the fact is that any indetity beyond the biological is made up.

It is morally repugnant that any individual should be denied basic civil rights because of what a "people" think their right is. The day we end the notion that collectives have rights that can supercede those of individual humans beings will be a glorious day for humanity.

[notyoueither]

GePap, I take it you are for open borders and no restrictions on immigration for any state.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
GePap, I take it you are for open borders and no restrictions on immigration for any state.

You are correct.

I am totally against nationalism - I think it the worst idea from the French revolution. I think it dangerous and perfectly built for supporting authoritarianism and genocide.

After all, if all that matters is "peoples", then you can easily come up with a defensible and rational reason why one people should exterminate another, utterly ignoring that any "people" is made up of individual human beings.

[Timexwatch]

In other news....

IDF probe: Gaza beach blast not caused by wayward army shell
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent and Reuters

An Israel Defense Forces committee has concluded that the deaths of seven members of a Palestinian family at a Gaza beach last Friday were not caused by an errant IDF artillery shell.

Defense Minister Amir Peretz, IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz and Major General Meir Kalifi, who headed the committee, held a press conference in Tel Aviv Tuesday evening to present the probe's findings.

"We have enough findings to back up the suspicion that the intention to describe this as an Israeli event is simply not correct," Peretz said, continuing, "The accumulating evidence proves that this incident was not due to Israeli forces."

Advertisement

The committee found that the Palestinians were not killed by an Israeli artillery shell, as had been assumed by the foreign press and much of the Israeli media. The probe concludes that the blast was probably caused by an explosive device buried in the sand, but does not determine categorically whether it was planted by Palestinians or was an old IDF dud.

"We can say, surely, that the IDF is not responsible for the incident," Halutz told reporters.

"We checked each and every shell that was fired from the sea, the air and from the artillery on the land and we found out that we can track each and every one according to a timetable and according to the accuracy of where they hit the ground.
...................................

See the rest

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


You are correct.

I am totally against nationalism - I think it the worst idea from the French revolution. I think it dangerous and perfectly built for supporting authoritarianism and genocide.

After all, if all that matters is "peoples", then you can easily come up with a defensible and rational reason why one people should exterminate another, utterly ignoring that any "people" is made up of individual human beings.

So any group that adopt a common cause, work hard, and build something should be forced to share with all those who want to come lately and pilfer the bounty of earlier labour?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


So any group that adopt a common cause, work hard, and build something should be forced to share with all those who want to come lately and pilfer the bounty of earlier labour?

And who would "force them" exactly????

[Geronimo]

why would hamas mine a beach? was it popular with israelis? With all the talk about a one state solution as impossible because of all of the mutual hatred I would be a little suprised if it turned out this beach heavily frequented by both pals and israelis.

I think the old dud shell theory seems like the most likely explanation.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap




And who would "force them" exactly????

Your view of how things should work?

Am I misunderstanding you as wanting people to be able to move freely from country to country with no restriction?

How do you make that happen?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Your view of how things should work?

Am I misunderstanding you as wanting people to be able to move freely from country to country with no restriction?

How do you make that happen?

How is someone having the ability to move where they can "forcing"?

I live in NYC. I have less in common with someone in rural Mississippi than I do with someone in London. FAR LESS. Yet that person from rural Mississippi can move to NYC at any point, if they want to and have the funds. NOw, how does that person moving in force anything upon me? HOW?

Now, change the situation and make it a guy from Togo. Their moving to my area still forces **** upon me. So again, where is the "force" anywhere?

Why should we cater to prejudice and xenophobia? If someone is unhappy because "others" are moving in, then MOVE, and keep moving until your xenophobic ass finds itself some nice cave to keep the "other" away. I could care less.

[notyoueither]

It's not necessarily prejudice and xenophobia.

It can be simple economics.

Not even the US could afford all those who want to move there if there were no restrictions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's not necessarily prejudice and xenophobia.

It can be simple economics.

Not even the US could afford all those who want to move there if there were no restrictions.

And simple economics would dictate that as things get worse in the US, people would leave the US and move to places were things were better, thereby, at the end, creating a general equilibrium worldwide.

After all, American would be as free to leave the land known as the US as anyone would be free to move into it.

[notyoueither]

Why should Americans adopt a policy that will make their country worse off?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why should Americans adopt a policy that will make their country worse off?

because it would be our very special way of showing how much we care about all the terrible hardship in the world. Just like how gepap shows how much he cares by all the homeless people he has lodging in his house.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why should Americans adopt a policy that will make their country worse off?

Because it won't make it worst.

The rich states in the US don;t sem to have suffered by allowing the poor states to send their people to them in the past, And now those decendents are moving back to the areas that used to be poor.

NYC is a great example of how aggresive and never ending immigration keeps a place vibrant.

And you fail to understand that I believe ALL STATES should have this policy, not just the US. Free movement from anywhere, to anywhere. Is that too hard to grasp?

[notyoueither]

No, I understand your desire. I puzzle at your math.

6 billion people. No restrictions.

Could NYC take another billion?